T H E F A L S E
S E L E C T I O N
P R I N C I P L E
Humans can live without any natural environment, because they can
live in an artificial environment, which is made by themselves.
They can live on their own absolute islands- thus: without
any natural environment. If you live in an artificial environment
like the ISS, the natural environment is even deadly for you. An
astronaut is immediately dead after leaving the ISS (artificial
environment) without any other artificial environment (at least
the astronaut suit). Humans who go through our solar system by their
spaceship without any contact to the planet Earth can survive as
long as they are in their self-made environment. During this time
(which can be a very long time in principle) all living beings that
live in this environment evolve because of a man-made environment.
So this anthropogenic environment causes the adaptations of all
living beings who live in it. They are selected by humans. In other
words: Darwins selection principle is false.
Interest (=> will) is the most important thing (perhaps
it is really Kant's Ding an sich - thing in itself
/ thing as such). A good example is the sexual
selection that I would prefer to call reproductive interests
when it comes to get ressources (including offspring / children),
namely either by (a) dominance
or by (b) will to appeal. If
a female can't reproduce herself and doesn't want a male or children,
because she is kidded - for example - by feminism or other nihilisms,
then she is no longer part of the evolution. End.
Who benefits from that?
In any case:
One has to have electric transmitter, for example: nerves.
Without logic consciousness makes no sense because there must be
a construction of a logical relationship for the consciousness,
even also when it is merely an imagination. Without logic language
makes also no sense. But what about logic? Does logic make sense
without consciousness? No. Does logic make sense without language?
Probably yes. A very primitive bacterium somehow knows
what to do in order to survive, but probably does not need a language
(note: language does not necessarily always mean human language,
but also language for all beings).
If we consider the principle luxury, we come to other
results: in that case namely the language came perhaps first because
the sense behind it was simply the luxury from which other phenomena
arose, e.g. logic. So the grunt (as an example) has only a meaning
behind it because of the luxury of grunts.
Referring to the German scientist Paul Alsberg (cp. Das
Menschheitsrätsel, 1922) the German philosopher Peter
Sloterdijk once said (in: Geo - Wissen, September 1998, S. 43-47):
The human beings are descended from the throw (translated
by me) and human beings have no coat / fur / hide / pett anymore
because they are luxury beings (translated by me), no beings
of adaptation to their environment (cp. Darwin and Darwinism), but
on the contrary: beings of alienation, of insulation (cp. isles
and islands). Human language, human sexuality, human emotions ...
etc. are possibly caused by luxury. But what about language in general
Relative reproductive interest because of the relative free
will of living beings.
There is probably no selection but reproductive interest.
So we probably have (1) variation,
(2) reproductive interest (instead
of selection), and (3) reproduction
as the three principles of evolution.
Who or what selects? God? The nature? The environment? That would
mean very passive actors in evolution. The reproductive interest
means at least partly active actors in evolution.
A reproductive interest is part of the will (and therefore also
of the nature, environment), and because of the fact that living
beings have no free will but a relative
free will the reproductive interest is merely a relative reproductive
So I dont deny the principle selection but I partly ignore
it because no one knows who or what really selects.
The creator of the universe - in premodern times there was no doubt
that it was God - is sometimes also called designer.
The luxury is a very special phenomenon, especially
for human beings. Human beings are luxury beings. They make their
artificial island of luxury in the sea of nature. Evolution is not
just about adaptation to nature, but also about distancing from
nature, thus about the luxury islands.
For human beings luxury is not the exception but the rule.
The so-called revolutions are also and especially a
part of the luxury. They are a special kind of luxury for they occur
because the so-called revolutionary want the power and
thus the greatest possible luxury gratis, without any work, without
any effort, ... and so on.
The nature is full of violence, full of cruelness, full of abominations,
and any and every living being is equipped with the will to live,
the will to power. Even then, if we really want to take responsibility
for nature, we could not do it, because we are also living beings.
So the human promise of responsibility fort the nature
is a lie. Having said that, we should not be surprised about that
Schopenhauer was the earlier and the better Darwin.
A half century before Darwin Schopenhauer explained philosophically,
especially metphysically, how the nature works. Accordig to Schopenhauer
the cause is the will, the thing as such
is the will. A half century later Darwin said that the cause of
evolution would be the natural selection. Darwin was a theologian,
and thus his statement has a theological aspect because of the question:
what or who really selects?. However, Schopenhauer was
the discoverer or founder of evolution.
We dont know the first cause; we can believe in a so-called
unmoved mover(Aristoteles) or in a so-called thing
as such (Kant) which became later the will (Schopenhauer);
we can also believe in coincidence and its following selection
(Darwin); but the latter is the most imperfect one of those four
explanations how development and/or evolution work.
We dont need to say that Darwin was totally wrong, but we
should be allowed to say that he was partly wrong, in any case more
wrong than Schopenhauer. We also don't need to consequently negate
the nature because it is so cruel (and it is very cruel!). Because
of that we can faith in Nietzsche and his affirmation of all development
(thus also evolution and history), but also not too much!
Darwinistically we evolved from the apes, okay, but Anti-Darwinistically,
thus culturally, we evolved from the throw(ing) (**|**|**|**|**|**).
Humans pleasure and replication are already separated. So
humans are now a species between animals (humans) and (humans,)
machines or gods, not far away from (those) machines between humans
If someone says that natural selection disproves God,
then that one merely says by using other words, how important it
is to have not only a natural science burt also a spiritual or moral
science, or philosophy.
Darwinism can explain many things but not all because it is the
trial and the error to explain biological development by demographic
and economic developments (compare: Thomas R. Malthus). And that
does not work completely. There is something like a missing
link between biology on the one side and demography and economy
on the other side. The evolution of the species does not
only function by adaptation or fitting but also by dissociation
The Darwinian evolution theory consists of three prnicples: (1)
heredity (inheritance, descent), (2) variation, (3) selection; and
just the selection which is the most characteristic principle of
the Darwinian evolution theory is at least partly false.
There are flaws or at least one flaw in the Darwinian evolution
theory: it is just the natural selection which is partly
false. And if it is partly false, then it is scientifically falsified.
Therefore the Darwinians or Darwinists are eager and eagerer to
find new declarations. So now they have not only the so-called natural
selection but also the so-called sexual selection,
the so-called kin selection, and other so-called selections,
even a so-called social selection, but honestly: a social
selection which is not under the control of the natural
selection is already the prove that the natural selection can't
be the only kind of selection, and that means that the natural selection
as one of the three priciples of Darwinism is at least partly false.
.... And if it is partly false, then it is scientifically falsified.
.... (See above) ....
If there is a social selection which is temporarily independend
of the natural selection - and there is one -, then the natural
selection is temporarily not at work in that case, so it can be
tricked. If the natural selection can be tricked - and it can, namely
by humans -, then it is not that natural selection that Darwin meant.
So in reality the natural selection is merely a part of other selections
of the evolution theory, although the natural selection is the main
selection because there is a hierarchy among the selections. And
poetically said: the selectional chief does not
always see everything and anything.
Darwin said, the fittest have more children than the others; so
the unfittest die out. But that is not always true for humans. Social
selection can be positive (eugenics) and negative (dysgenics), so
it can select in the way that natural selection does and also in
the reverse way: the unfittest have more children than the others;
so the fittest die out.
The use of tools that do not belong to the own body are alrerady
a prestage of luxury; the use of language, if it is close to the
value of the human language, as well; games do all mammals have
(maybe it is a pre-prestage of luxury). B.t.w.: Luxury can be measured
by the degree of insulation. The more living beings are able to
live on an own island (meant as a metaphor!), the more
they are luxury beings. Or, in other words, the more living beings
are able to behave against the Darwinistic evolution, the more they
are luxury beings. Insulations give those beings a relative (!)
independence of adaptation to nature. The adaptation to nature has
not vanished but has been added by dissociation of nature. And the
only living being that has achieved this independence in a sufficient
extent is the human being.
The question is how we value this relative (!) independence.
This relative independence is caused by insulation or dissociation
of nature with the main effect: luxury. And this insulation is (a)
natuarlly caused by the relatively huge brain and (b) culturally
caused by the huge consciousness, awareness, knowkedge, language
of human beings.
Whether alpha males and their mates get the first resources
in almost any specie (**)
or not is obviously not important for luxury beings. Are Occidental
humans alpha males and their mates? Do they have the most descendants?
No! The reverse is true: They have the least descendants. Do the
humans with the most descendants (thus currently the Black humans
in Africa) get the first resources? No!
Humans do not completely fit in the scheme of the Darwinistic evolution
In Europe, especially in West and West-Central Europe the average
winter-temperature is often higher than +2° Celsius (35.6°
Fahrenheit) - caused by the Gulf Stream.
The natural cause of the relative (!) independence of human beings
is their brain, and the cultural cause or reason of the relative
(!) independence of human beings is their huge consciousness, awareness,
knowkedge, language. So we owe our relative independence (relative
free will) to our brain.
The development of our brain is almost a miracle, a wonder.
The main aspect is the insulation (dissociation of nature) which
leads to luxury and is naturally caused by the brain. So we have
(1) the brain, (2) the insulation (dissociation of nature), (3)
the luxury and also the self-consciousness with its epiphenomenon
egoism and many other features, but it is more the luxury that leads
to the self-consciousness than it is the self-consciousness that
leads to luxury. Some animals have self-consciousness in almost
the degree that human children in the age of 1 to 2 years have,
but these animals do not have luxury in the degree that human children
in the age of 1 to 2 years have. And human children become egoistic
in that typical human way (you said: extreme) after
that age, usually when they are older than 2 years. Luxury is more
a communal than a personal matter.The human development is more
a communal than a personal (individual) development.
The human development is more a cultural than a natural development,
because the natural development of the humans is more (about 98%;
see above) an animal development than a human development.
Naturally you need a relative large and a very
complex brain, if you want to become a human being, but then, when
that brain exists, your further development is more a cultural than
a natural development. The huge consciousness (with its accordingly
huge self-consciousness), the huge knowledge, the huge and complex
language, ... were naturally caused by the brain but would be totally
useless, if their development were merely a natural development.
The humans are humans very much more because of their cultural development
than because of their natural development. Naturally humans are
98%-animals, but culturally humans are 98%-humans.
Naturally humans are 98%-animals, but culturally humans are 98%-humans.
Like I said (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**):
Human beings are luxury beings.
Evolution is not just about adaptation to nature, to environment,
but also about distancing from nature, from environment, thus about
the luxury islands.
Human beings are the only living beings that can disassociate themselves
from nature in such a dimension that they do not completely have
to adapt themselves to nature, to their natural environment. They
can destroy the nature just for fun. Other living beings can also
have a little bit luxury, but their luxury is always embedded in
their immediate nature, their natural environment. They are not
able to overcome their dependence of nature. They remain living
creatures in the sense of Darwinism: those that are successful have
the most descendants, and those that are not successful have the
less or no descendants and die out. Luxury beings are the only living
beings that can show also the opposite direction: being successful
and having less or no descendants (children) and beeing unsuccessful
and having the most descendants (children). This two cases would
immediately lead to extinction, if they were completely embedded
in nature, in natural environment. In the case of human beings it
does not lead to extinction, if they are in situations of independence
of nature; they often are in such situations, and then It depends
on human decisions whether a group of human beings or even all human
beings die out or not. Humans have two natures: (1) the real nature
which all other living beings also have, (2) their own nature as
their culture(s) which is (are) much independend of the real nature.
So when I say human nature is human culture/s, then
I mean that - in a pure natural sense - humans are 98%-animals;
so in this sense they have a 98%-animal nature and merely a 2%-human
nature, but this 2% are their culture/s. And in a pure cultural
sense this relation is inversely proportional.
If humans are humans to 100%, then merely to 2% because of their
nature; but to 98% because of their culture/s!
Human beings are group-living animals - just
like pack animals. Since the human beings came into the world -
whenever their birth was - they have been being such
group-living animals (naturally) and group-living humans (culturally).
So it is very difficult for them to not differentiate themselves
from others, especially from other group-living animals (naturally)
and group-living humans (culturally). They can not give up their
attitude of we-are-not-them, we-do-not-want-to-be-like-them,
and so on.
If such a group becomes too large, then it becomes less controllable;
if such a group becomes too small, then it also becomes less controllable,
because it can easily be conquered /captured by a foreign group.
Now, put 1 and 1 together and think of the current Occicental
culture which is too large because of its economic restraints (i.e.
expansion) and too small because of its individualism, extreme egoism.
So you have a too large group with too much too small subgroups
as one phenomenon. This group can very easily be conquered /captured
by a foreign group.
Cultures, empires, nations and other large societies are too large;
but if there are already different cultures, empires, nations and
other large societies, then they also have already changed their
strategy in order to defend themselves. Ideally a human group should
consist of not more than about 100 members, but the history of the
last 6000 years shows which strategy more and more humans chose
in order to defend their groups: some groups became large (too large!),
many groups remained small (in an oriiginally ideal sense which
became a disadvantage), and many of this many groups got conquered
/ captured by the large groups. And each time when this large groups
became civilisations with economic restraints (see above)
- expansion is everything (Cecil Rhodes) -, then the
small groups becamne less and less. So today we have some very large
groups and some very small groups, and one of the very large (very
much too large) groups is a group of individualsm, thus exists of
too much very too small subgroups. That's dangerous. Another very
large group which is not a group of individualism behaves like every
large group which has not too much very too small subgrous, thus
wants to expand and to prevent individualism. That's dangerous.
too. - So the Occident has many strategic problems: enemies inside
(the very too small subgroups) and outside (foreign groups), economic
restraints (i.e. expansion) which strengthen those enemies, ....
The West is both very too large and very too small (because of too
much individualism), and that means tendentious weakness, thus "feed"
for those groups which are strong, large, and intelligent enough
to conquere / capture it.
The more a group grows the more strategies are needed to control
this group. If a group has its enemies both outside (foreign groups)
and inside (i.e. its own subgroups and parts of foreign groups)
of itself, then this group is tendentially weak and destroys itself
from inside (demographic facts are included - of course), so that
this group's enemies just have to await their best chance.
Please compare (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**):
Human beings are luxury beings.
The word progress is a bit problematic, because the
development is spiral cyclic, not simply linear or even exponential.
So the so-called human grogress is merely in our thoughts
and not the real development, but we have to keep the process in
motion, and therefore we need such thoughts.
And hedonism leads i.a. to more lies and hypocrisy, to any kind
of socialism, to any knd of anti-socialism, to any knd of facsism,
to any knd of anti-fascism, to any knd of feminism, to any knd of
anti-feminism, just to demise.
Hedonism is one of the attributes of modernity (its main attribute
is - by the way - any kind of exaggerated mobilisation).
Isms are always extreme / unhealthy forms of decadence
/ demise. So i.e. hedonism and decadence have very much to do with
The last one is homo hedonisticus.
The antagonist of the hedonism will not vanish or sublate in a
synthesis as long as the hedonism itself will not vanish or sublate
in a synthesis. Either both vanish or sublate in a synthesis or
no one of them.
There are many aspects which refer to the human reproduction: biological
differentiation (for example: pregnancy), other differentiations,
for example in the sense of specialisation or division of labor
(for example: homework versus other works, gathering versus hunting,
... and so on ....), ... and so on ....
The evolution of the human beings implies the differentiations
/ specialisations. If there had not been such a specialisation,
there would never have been any human being.
When these human differentiations / specialisations will vanish,
then the human beings will vanish. That's clear.
Males and females should be different in order to prevent the extinction
of homo sapiens. Without their differentiations / specialisations
they would never have become humans and will never survive.
Human beings are very specific living beings: animal-not-wannabes
on the one side and god-wannabes on the other side. Humans
are pretty much animals, but do not want to be animals, and they
are not pretty much god(s), but want to be god(s). Humans are not
able to be real animals and not able to be real god(s) - they are
between the two, so a human being means a being between an animal
and a god.
The Ancient Romans said to someone who was as presumptuous as you
seem to be: Remember that you are a mortal being.
Gods are no mortal beings - this belongs to
the definition of god(s).
Some mllion years humans (including some ancestors of homo sapiens)
lived together with wild animals. Since about 6000 years humans
have been living together - more or less - with pets and other harmless
animals and not or hardly with wild animals. You personally have
never lived together with wild animals but merely with pets and
other harmless animals.
Humans are just not really perfect.
Since the date when humans became modern - whenever
it was - they have been following the idea that something
should do the work for them, but they have never been considering
that that also implies the possibility of their complete replacement
by this something. Human beings as luxury beings have
been considering mostly the comfort but rarely the danger of this
Who of the humans is really able to decide in place of every and
any human being, especially those of the future?
I answer: No one of the humans. In that case the humans play God
The purpose / goal / sense of life could be to fulfill / accomplish
/ achieve what was set in the beginning of it.
Evolution is an own-dynamic, self-organised
process, and according to the systemic-evolution-theory its three
principles are (1) variation, (2)
reproduction (according to Darwinism: heredity), (3)
reproduction interest (according to the Darwinism: selection [but
that is partly false]). Self-preservation means preservation of
the competence during the current own life. Variation (=> 1)
means that there are and must be several units (often called individuals)because
of the mutations, the variances in the genetic code. Reproduction
(=> 2) means preservation of the
competence beyond the own life (by having offspring [children]).
Reproduction interest (=> 3) means
the interest in the reproduction (the example homo sapiens
shows that this interest can be non-existent or even negative).
Can machines be or are they already part of this own-dynamic, self-organised
process which we call evolution?
There has to be a decision, yes, and that means that there has
to be an interest, a reproduction interest. Like I said (**)
A being does not have to be a living
being when it comes to evolution. Non-living beings can evolve
if they fulfill the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction,
reproduction interest) or others (for example: growers, breeders,
Raisers, stockmen) help them, so that they can evolve.
So cultured cellphones can evolve - similarly to all living beings,
regardless wether they are wild or bred like e.g. potatoes and sheep
dogs. But that does not mean that cellphones are living beings.
Non-living beings like cellphones can - nonetheless - be part of
the evolution, if the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction,
reproduction interest) are fulfilled.
I do not consider any change in
the entity as an evolution. I also do not consider
any change in the entity as an evolution, irrespective of how it
Evolution refers not merely to living beings but to other beings
as well, if the three evolution princples are fulfilled
Please do not confuse evolution with life.
Untroubled existence (**)
is a loose concept. However, the reality shows us almost always
the opposite side of that what you call our need is untroubled
If humans have less troubles than they usually have, then they
invent troubles. Metaphorically said humans live on an island
of luxury, surrounded by an ocean of non-luxury and
Each culture is embedded in nature.
If it is not false that humans are naturally 98%-animals
and 2%-humans but culturally 98%-humans
and 2%-animals, then it is easy to find out that they
are not able to leave all troubles behind them (trouble equals
strength) and that they are nonetheless able to sublimate
troubles because of their culture.
So generally human troubles do not vanish.
See also: **
1) The prestage of the human luxury beings
was the upright walking which led to the possibility of using
hands in many other ways than walking which led to a more
voluminous brain with very much more capacity which led to the
birth of the luxury being.
2) The birth of the human luxury beings was the
use of fire which was associated with the use of language.
3) The youth of the human luxury beings was the sapientisation.
4) The adulthood of the human luxury beings began when
they were left alone, thus with the Neanderthal extinction
(since then there has been being merely one species of the humans).
4a) The early adulthood of the human luxury beings:
from the Neanderthal extinction to the transition (the
so-called Neolithic Revolution) to the agriculture.
4b) The middle adulthood of the human luxury beings:
from the agriculture to that probable date in the future
when machines will take over (**|**).
4c) The late adulthood of the human luxury beings: from
the probable date in the future when machines will have taken
over to the death of the last human.
I was speaking of reproduction
interests, and (reproduction interest implcates
to choose to reproduce or replicate and to choose to not
reproduce or replicate).
An own interest in reproduction or replication implies something
like a simple stimulus-response mechanism or even a consciousness.
All cells reproduce or replicate themselves, and the consciousness,
if there is one, is able to influence the cells, to suppress the
interest in reproduction or replication, to prevent the reproduction
or replication (humans are an example for this kind of suppressing
There are two levels of interest: (a)
a kind of stimulus-sesponse mechanism as an interest, and (b)
a conscious interest. With human help I meant the help
by using the human consciousness (=> b)
not the human stimulus-sesponse mechanism (=> a
[for example in the human cells]).
The abilities of human beings are too complex, so if there are,
for example, two neighborly human groups (e.g. X and
Y) and the human group X does x
and the human group Y does y, then it is
very much probable that one of this two human groups will sooner
or later change its doing, unless these two groups are isolated
from each other. Huamn beings have far more possibilities of doing
or behaving, far more capabilities or skills than e.g. ants. Ants
are great specialists - but they do always the same.
Evolution takes place, if its three prnciples are fulfilled, regardless
Evolving beings do not need to be independent in order to be part
(namely a dependent part) of the evolution. Pets, for example, evolved
and evolve because of the help of the humans.
Evolution is more natural than cultural, wheras history is more
cultural than natural. It is a difference - often even a huge difference
- whether living beings like the human beings develop naturally
or culturally. It is a difference whether the brain of the humans
has grown or the constitutional state is established by the Occidental
humans. Evolution is more important than history when it comes to
naturally survive. Evolution came before history - the revers is
not possible. At first you, for example, have to change from an
animal to an human before you can change from an natural human with
natural and cultural evolution to a cultural human with natural
and cultural evolution and then to a cultural human with history,
thus with natural and cultural evolution, and - now: of course -
Information is very important - naturally and culturally
(our current economy, for example, should be much more orientated
towards Information than towards energy).
Humans can never be 100%-animals but merely 98%-animals,
and humans can never be gods but godwannabes, although no 100%-godwannabes
but merely 98%-godwannabes.
Humans are luxury beings; so if you want them to not have luxury,
then you do nothing else than the rulers do: make the 1% of all
humans (the rulers) richer and richer and the 99% of all humans
poorer and poorer.
The Brazilianisation of the world is a process of 3rd-world-isation
which will lead to a tiny, crowded, and very ugly islands
of the 99% of all humans with a tiny luxury and to a huge, sparsely
populated, and very beautiful island of the 1% of all
humans with a huge luxury.
The humans as the luxury beings are not able to stop the luxury
itself - what they get, if they try to stop it, is an unfairer and
unfairer distribution (allocation) of the luxury. So, for example,
you can eschew luxury, of course, but that merely makes the distribution
(allocation) of the luxury unfairer and unfairer, so that you consequently
must eschew luxury, whereas the 1% of all humans can get
more and more luxury, because your eschewal of luxury does not mean
all humans eschewal of luxury but the increase of other humans'
luxury. At last 99% of all humans will have to eschew about 99%
of all luxury (wealth), whereas 1% of all humans will have that
99% of all luxury (wealth).
Humans are not perfect. They are not capable of being 100%-animals
and also not capable of being gods.
The natural selection is not God but merely one aspect
of the natural development.
Evolution is not just about adaptation to nature, but also about
distancing from nature.
Without speech (language)
human beings would not have come into the world: The »birth«
of the human luxury beings was the use of fire which was
associated with the use of language. **
Why do humans have their language?
1) Language is a very much elaborated form of communication (information
system) - there is an interdependence between language and communication
2) Language serves and supports thinking - there is an interdependence
between language and thinking.
1 + 2) Language is a cultural tool - there is an interdependence
between language and culture.
Without language humans would almost exclusively be like animals:
(1) they would not speak but merely communicate like animals; (2)
they could not have philosophy and other elaborated systems of thinking;
(1 + 2) they would not have their own cultural tool, the typical
human tool for culture.
If you are capable of using fire, then you are powerful and can
defend yourself against all animals, sit at your bonfire and talk
with other hunters about the hunt, about the past and the future,
thus you have more leisure, more luxury; and this gives you and
your culture a push in all directions, especially in spritual /
intellectual directions, and then a feedback from all those directions.
But nevertheless: the human nature is not only the human language
but the whole human culture; and merely the rest of about 2% is
a pure natural aspect of the human nature (these 2% are not really
few - as we know, especially from genetics).
Human beings are human beings mainly (about 98%) because of their
culture/s. Do you (**)
want them to completely return to nature, to completely become animals?
You should not be surprised if someone asks you whether you want
the humans to completely return to nature, to completely become
animals, because you refer to generalities like nature.
Why do you think that there has to be a better ethical theory than
the one that is presently being taught in classrooms (of the US, I
Life in a negative sense of valuation is not only about suffering
but also about death. Humans want to be immortal - like gods.
Children develop and learn to be like adults. The older a child
the more similar to an adult.
If children are capable of living authentically and adults are
not capable of living authentically anymore, then the difference
of both is because of development and learning, ubringing and education,
thus because of natural and cultural processes which cause
that adult humans are not capable of living authentically
We can say that an authentic human life means a life
according to the human's nature, whereas an unauthentic
life means a life according to the human's culture/s.
In other words: Humans need their culture/s to not live according
to their nature and need their nature to not live according to their
So if humans are humans because of about 2% of their nature
and because of about 98% of their culture/s (**),
then they have merely a chance of about 2% to live authentically.
The Darwinistic selection principle is false, unless human beings
were not included in that theory.
Darwin's selection principle means that successful living beings
have more offspring than the unsuccessful living beings and live
on, whereas unsuccessful living beings have less offspring than
the successful living beings and die out. But in the case of the
human beings this selection principle can be reversed: successful
human beings have less offspring than the unsuccessful human beings
and die out, whereas unsuccessful living beings have more offspring
than the successful living beings and live on. The human culture/s
allow/s to circumvent the Darwinistic selection principle.
Darwin's selection principle of his theory of evolution itself
is an equivocation. It even contains a contradiction, because the
humans do do not completely fit it. On the one side humans fit Darwin's
selection principle of his theory of evolution when it comes to
human nature, but on the other side humans do not fit Darwin's selection
principle of his theory of evolution when it comes to human culture/s
respectively to the modern era/s of human culture/s.
Your ideological (modern religious) statement (**)
is meaningless, because your false god Darwin was partly wrong,
regardless whether it is hard for an Darwinistic theist like you
to believe it (by the way: Darwin was a theist too - a pantheist).
When it became obvious that the natural selection was
partly false, the sexual selection was invented. When
it became obvious that the sexual selection was also
partly false, the kin selection was invented. When it
became obvious that the kin selection was also partly
false, the social selection was invented. And so on,
and so on .... The natural selection is - more or less
- contradicted by the other selections, especially and
completely by the social selection. The Darwinistic
selection principle is merely a farce.
The theologist Darwin was a Malthusian, and Malthus was an economist.
In nature (in nature!) fitness or success is
measured by reproduction. Living beings that have the most offspring
are the fittest, thus are most successfull (because
you can merely be most successful, if you are the fittest).
Success is the consequence of fitness. The success follows the fitness.
So when it comes to nature it is absolutely correct to say that
successful living beings live on, because they have more offspring
than the unsuccessful living beings, whereas successful living beings
die out, because they have no offspring or less offspring than the
unsuccessful living beings. But when it come to humans, especially
to modern humans culture/s, it is not correct to say that, because
modern humans are fit, thus successful, when they have no offspring
or less offspring than those humans who are not fit, thus unseccessful.
The said social selection contains the possibility
of selecting against the Darwinistic selection principle.
And this happened and happens. Thus it was and is a fact.
The Darwin principle of evolution has only been a part of
what has been altering the nature of life, animal and human. The
principle of filtering the strong in and the weak out is entirely
situationally dependent. Given the exact same competitive creatures
in a different environmental situation, the opposite set could succeed
This definitely means that the selection principle of Darwin, the
Darwinans, and the Darwinianists is false.
Strength and weakness are not simple concepts when it comes
to actual life. (**).
The Political Correctness wants us to speak of fitness.
So it all gets very complicated and from one era to another
can almost completely change. But there is one aspect that can never
change. And that is which ever behaves in a manner that is more
anentropic, survives longer. But then ensuring which behavior that
really is can be complicated. So I cannot say that the principle
is entirely true nor entirely false. It is partially true and partially
false. It is not a »holy«, stand-alone principle and
is often reversed. And the intentional effort to go along with it,
completely defeats it. (**).
Partially true and partially false scientifically
means false, because it has to be regarded as false, if merely one
part of a theory is false. It is the theorist who has to provide
a correct theory.
What is really very much questionable and partially not true is
the selection principle - not more. Darwins theory of evolution
is based on three principles: (1) variation,
(2) heredity, (3)
Those who claim to be atheists are antitheists, or
theists, or both (that's possible), and in this case Darwin is their
false god. There are many of those false gods - as you know; but
the main problem are not the false gods themselves but those stupid
ideologists (modern-religious zealots) who believe in them.
Not he whole science (**)
but merely its theorist ... has to provide a correct theory
(see above). The theorist must have the honest claim to provide
a correct theory. Otherwise science would choke. Scientists have
to do their jobs seriously, that means in the case of theorists
to provide a correct theory, and a correct theory means correct
according to the current knowledge about logic and observation/experimentation.
Referred to Darwinisms scientists know or could know that the Darwinistic
selection principle is partly false, and then they have to scrap
or to correct the whole theory. Maybe that I did not choose the
most adequate translation of my thoughts, but it was no mistake.
Science consists of observation/experimentation as praxis and of
theory, and the theorists do not have less responsibility than the
practicians (observers/experimenters). Probably one can rescue the
other two principles of the Darwinistic theory of evolution but
not its selection principle, if humans are included in it.
Darwin's selection principle has not much to do with science in
general but with a relatively small part of a scientific theory,
if it really is a scientific theory. But the theory is as important
as the praxis. If there were no kind of falsification in science,
then all theories of the past would still be valid. Many theories
are valid, although they are partlially false. So the Ptolemaic
system could also be correct, because it is not totally incorrect.
But that is not the way how science works. Ironically but not accidentally
science works like Darwinism, Social-Darwinism, so to say. So if
one says that Darwin's selection principle is partly false, then
this one will get a problem with some powerful people, but that
does not mean that this one is wrong. The real reason why some theories
are scrapped has more to do with power than with science itself.
Many other theories are also merely partly false and regarded as
being totally false, but some currently valid theories are regarded
as being correct, although they are partly false as well.
A theory is falsified not only then, if a theory is false, but
also then, if only one single part of a theory is false.
Technology is an applied science and belongs more to the praxis
side of science than to the theory side of science. There have been
many examples in the history of science and technology that have
showed how a theory can be strongly influenced by technology and/or
scientifiic praxis (obsevations/experimentations): in some cases
a theory got approved, in some cases a theory got scrapped (discarded).
Allegedly some geological theories got approved by the landing on
the Moon because of some rocks that were brought from the Moon to
the Earth, whereas other geological theories got scrapped (discarded)
by it because of the same rocks. Both science and technology and
again both scientific praxis and scientific theory influence each
Dariwn's selection principle insofar as it refers to humans
(!) has not led to any technological (!) success but
merely to more belief in it.
Regarding a theory as false, although merely a small part of it
is false, has often led to more science success than a conservative
defence of it. And false theories are usually not dead
theories, if science is not dead.
But, please, do not forget:
A theory is falsified not only then, if a theory is false,
but also then, if only one single part of a theory is false.
Creationists are often but do not have to be religious, Darwinists
are much more religious, namely modern-religious, thus ideological.
I do not want to destroy the whole Darwinistic theory. What I want
is to find out what happens to that theory without one of its three
principles, because that one principles is false, if humans are
included in it.
Darwin was a theologist. If you do not believe it, go and google
it and get that your false god Darwin was a theologist and a theist,
eaxctly a pantheist, and pantheists are often confused
with atheists, although pantheists are theists and there are almost
no atheists. Also often confused with atheists are antitheists.
And a new religion in modern times can be correctly called a modern
religion, thus an ideology, of course with false gods, thus idols.
I used the word success instead of fitness
just in order to rescue the Darwinistic theory, because the concept
of fItness is problematic. Those humans who are fit
have less offspring than those humans who are unfit.
You can easily observe and prove this as a fact.
In a human cultural environment idiot criminals can be punished
or not - thus: it depends on the human cultural (especially political)
environment whether criminal idiots proliferate or not. This idiot
criminals can be punished by death and do not proliferate but die
out, and the same idiot criminals can be revered as heroes and do
not die out but proliferate.
You can easily observe this.
Human cultures can insure that only the strong do not survive.
Natur and culture are not really a dichotomy, because culture is
embedded in nature.
Genes and memes do not work in the same way. So Richard Dawkins'
meme theorie is false too.
Darwin's selection principle is partly false. Therefore the natural
selection was extended by the sexual selection,
because the natural selection had partly failed; then
the sexual selection was extended by the
kin selection, because the seuxal selection
had partly failed; then the kin selection was extended
by the social selection, because the kin selection
had partly failed; ... and so on, one day the social selection
will be extended by the godly selection
(again), because the social selection will have partly
Who selects according to the Darwinistic selection principle?
Who is the breeder according to the Darwinistic selection principle?
1) According to the natural selection
the breeder is the nature.
2) According to the sexual selection the breeder are
3) According to the kin selection the breeder are the
4) According to the social selection the breeder is
the social state.
These just keep getting funnier.
And even if the different types of selection are different
mechanisms of selection: they contradict each other, especially
the natural selection and the social selection.
A social state can and does decide against the nature, the so-called
natural selection, and also against the sexual
selection and the kin selection, ... and so on.
In almost all cases the social selection and the natural
selection are diametrically opposed.
The socal selection just allows the social state
as the breeder to select whomever it wants to be selected - so:
these people will die, those people will live just because of the
decision of the social state.
Darwin knew nothing about genetics.
Do you not know that there are the sexual selection,
the kin selection, and especially the social selection
as well? At the latest when we are talking about social selection:
the term fitness has already changed - often in its
opposed meaning. So I did not change the term, but the Darwinists
themselves did it. So the Darwinists themselves equivocate.
According to Darwin the fittest have more offspring and live on,
while the unfittest have less and at last no offspring and die out.
According to the social selection - thus to the social
state - a decision of just the opposite is possible and happens
in reality every day: the unfittest live on, while the fittest die
out. If Darwin's selection principle was not false, the social
selection could and would not be possible.
It is hard for modern believers when they notice their idols are
as dead as their ideologies.
Another Darwinistic fairy tale: When Darwin wrote his books
every single word he used had a specific meaning and
differed from the colloquial usage. Today there is nobody
- except the Darwinists of course - who is capable of understanding
a single word Darwin used in his books.
Have you never heard of Anti-Darwinism or any Darwinistic criticism?
- Individuals are not blind or absolutely dependent
when it comes to the framework conditions of nature.
- The so-called social selection contradicts the so-called
natural selection in many aspects.
- The immunity to any criticism indicates that Darwinism is a modern
- David Stove's book Darwinian Fairytales.
- Darwinism as an Universal Darwinism.
- Darwinism as an Ultra Darwinism.
- Darwinism explains NOTHING.
You push me in the role of an Anti-Darwinist, although I am not
an Anti-Darwinist - but also not an Darwinist.
Darwinism is a system that makes humans dependent
like pets. It is no accident that Darwinism and Marxism, Nietzscheanism,
Freudianism have they have roughly the same age and are so much
similar when it comes to speak about humans as absolutely dependent
pets. Those isms have to do with compulsion systems, with dogmatism,
with religion, but not with science.
Humans are not absolutely free, but they are relatively
free. They do not depend on their environment like other living
beings. Humans have the possibility to trick the nature. They are
luxury beings. Their culture is a huge island in the
ocean as nature. If they were not relatively free, then
they could and would not be capable of destroying their environment,
the whole globe, and meanwhile also the outer space, could and would
not be capable of bringing every living being in an absoluetly foreign
environment, could and would not be capable of having a technolgy
that makes them more than demigods.
Humans do not absolutely depend on economic or fatalistic or unconscious
restraints. They are relatively free. Humans are not pets, although
they educate themselves as if they were pets.
There are also or even exclusively cultural reasons, especially
economical and social ("social selection", "social
The senses can already be used before the birth: (1)
sense of touch at the age of about 2 months after the fertilisation;
(2) sense of balance at the age of
about 2 till some more months after the fertilisation; (3)
sense of taste at the age of about 3 months after the fertilisation;
(4) sense of smell at the age of about
5 months after the fertilisation; (5)
sense of hearing at the age of about 6 months after the fertilisation;
(6) sense of sight at the age of about
9 months after the fertilisation.
If we assume that Darwin's theory of evolution is not false and
that less offspring can be fine (**),
then having less offspring can merely be fine in a cultural sense
and perhaps for a very short time (!) also in a natural sense
but not in the sense of Darwin's theory of evolution, especially
his selection principle. So according to Darwin's theory
of evolution having less offspring is always a disadvantage, because
it leads to extinction. According to Darwin's selection principle
the living beings with less offspring die out because of their unfitness
and the fitness of the living beings with more offspring. That is
the main point of Darwin's selection principle. Darwin's
theory of evolution refers to developments in the long run - otherwise
it would not be accepted as a theory of evolution but merely
as a theory of breeding - and by the way: the theory of breeding
is very much older than Darwin's theory of evolution.
Cultures or societies often contradict nature. The so-called social
selection is the selection of some rulers who decide against
nature just because of their own interests - e.g. money, thus power
- just in order to remain powerful. The social selection
can lead to the extinction of all who are involved in the social
selection, and in a global society of humans all humans are
involved in that social selection. Look what the rulers
do: they destroy the human's environment, the whole globe, they
sterilise the other humans (by poison and other means) and at last
probably themselves too, they murder other living beings, ... and
so on, ... and so on ..., just for money, thus power. If this human
beings were nothing else than natural, thus living beings that completely
depend on nature, then they could not do such nonsense. Humans are
relativeley free (not absoluetly free - because they are not gods),
so they can decide and act against nature, and they do decide and
act against nature.
This social selection is mostly directed against the
natural selection, against nature at all, because those
who select, want to exploit and to control anything and everything,
thus also nature, want to wield power over anything and everything,
thus also over nature.
Humans are capable to destroy all living beings on our planet.
According to Darwin's selection principle this means
that the species homo sapiens is the fittest species of all
times while most of all other species are the unfittest species
of all times, just because of the fact that homo sapiens
is capable of replacing most of all other species. But in addition
the species homo sapiens is capable of deciding and acting
against nature and the so-called natural selection.
Instead of fit one can also say capable,
competent, or successful.
It is totally obvious that (a) that
the natural selection is at least partly false, (b)
that the sexual selection is at least partly false and
was invented because of the partly false natural selection
, although they already contradict each other, (c)
that the kin selection is at least partly false and
was invented because of the partly false natural selection
and the partly false sexual selection, although they
already contradict each other, and (d)
that the social selection is at least partly false and
was invented because of partly false natural selection
, the partly false sexual selection , and the partly
false the kin selection , although they all contradict
each other and a contradicted by the social selection
. We are talking about fitness. And when the fittest die out, and
the unfittest live on, then you have no right to speak of a survival
of the fittest . The whole theory is false then.
No other living being than the human being is capable of circumventing
the Darwinistic selection principle.
Every human has a self-interest, a drive to be recognised, a will
to live - you may also call it a will to power.
All mechanisms of the Darwinistic selection principle
and all human's selections (for example the social
selection) do not coincide. Humans are luxury beings. They
are too wealthy; they are too rich; so they have their own selection
principle; they have, for example, their social selection.
Culture is embedded in nature; the social selection
is embedded in the natural selection; culture fights
nature; the social selection contradicts the natural
Evolutionary fitness is not an independent category of fitness.
Humans have a relatively free will. They do not as much
depend on nature (=> Darwin) as other living beings do; they
do not as much depend on economy as a living basis (=> Marx)
as other living beings do; they do not as much depend on fate /destiny
(=> Nietzsche) as other living beings do; they do not as much
depend on the unconscious (=> Freud) as other living
beings do. Humans are relatively free because of their high
developed brains, because high developed brains mean a relatively
high intelligence, thus also relatively high culture/s,
and that means a relative indepencence of nature.
The Darwinism is more an sociological/economical than a biological
theory. No surprise to me, because Darwin was a Malthusianist, and
Malthus was an economist.
When Darwinists talk about Darwinism, then they always talk about
sociological and economical aspects.
I am saying that the social selection (you may also
call it the human/cultural selection or the social
state selection), can and does often contradict the natural
selection, so that the fittest humans have less
and at last no offspring and die out, whereas the unfittest
have more offspring and at last the only offspring and survive (this
you may call survning of the unfittest). Therefore Darwin's
selection principle must be false, at least partly false.
Afterwards it is always easy to say said that those who die out
are not the fittest, but that does not always prove or disprove
the real fitness.
What did, for example, Pol Pot do? He eliminated
all intelligent humans in his country, because intelligence was
antisocialistic, thus not allowed in his socialistic
country. Were these humans really not the fittest (in
your terms)? Intelligence is a sign of fitness, although not the
only one. Pol Pot was one of many politicians who decided against
the so-called natural selection by operating their own
selection. According to them the people they murdered were not fit
in the sense that they were not the fitted.
The Darwinistic fitness concept is problematic and
thus almost useless.
In many aspects the Neanderthals were fitter than all other species
of the genus homo, but in spite of that fact the Neanderthatls
The Darwinists and nobody else have to prove or disprove, if they
want their theory to be accepted. If the Darwinists want their theory
to be accepted, then it is up to them to prove or to disprove. And
if it is not possible to prove or to disprove a theory, then this
theory has nothing to do with science.
If there is fitness, then there must be indicators
of fitness, otherwise the concept of fitness can never
be taken seriously.
The excuse of the Darwinists is, for example, that fitness
is more than fitness. So they do not want to be taken seriously.
One can only say after some facts that this
or that living being fitted. There are some indicators
of fitness, as I already said, but in some cases (for example in
the case of the human social selection) this indicators
can also be used as if they were indicadors of unfitness.
The Darwinistic fitness concept
is problematic, the Darwinistic selection principle
is partly false, and that includes the possibility of being totally
false but also being partly right. I would like to save the right
parts of that theory, because I think that it is going to be completely
eliminated, if nobody will have eliminated its false parts in order
to save its right parts.
Laws are like the instructional parts of any dogmatism and made
for dictatorships. I do not care whether some people want to name
them laws, because (at least to me) laws are superordinated
rules and should not have anything to do with science, otherwise
science would become a religion (and - unfortunately - it has already
partly become a religion).
The accent lies on the term is up to Darwinists not
on the word what. If I want to convince you, then it
is up to me to prove my statements or to disprove their negation.
Concerning your what I already said several times:
(1) selection, (2)
During the period of Realism and Naturalism (radical realism)
almost everything was related to nature, based on nature - it was
a reaction to the previous period: Idealism and Romantic.
You can say that we are the fittest of the Homo genus because
we are the only ones left. This is after the fact because all the
other ones are dead. (**).
One can say it, but that does not necessarily prove our
fitness or disprove our unfitness. So it is nonsensical
to say it as if it were something like the truth or a law (see above).
If you have won a game, then that fact does not necessarily prove
your fitness or disprove your unfitness. You may have had much luck
Survival is no sufficient indicator of fitness.
Humans do not as much depend on nature as animals do. Humans are
relatively free. So they can partly live against their nature. They
do not have to completely live according to nature. If a man wants
to be a woman, then he can choose to medically cut his penis. Men
have penises, women have vaginas. This is a knowledge that a 2½
years old child already has.
One would have to get after the perpetuation itself
in order to get the knowledge of «the fittest«;
but it is not possible to get after the perpetuation itself;
thus according to your own words it is not possible to know anything
about the fittest; and that means, for example, Darwin's
survival of the fittest is nonsense according to your
There are many selections, for example: natural selcetion, sexual
selection, kin selection, social selection ....
We select. Of course we do. Duh!
The »selectors« contradict it, they »select«
against the »natural selection« (cp.: »handicap«
- it can also be interpreted in the opposite way as it is by Darwinists).
Humans have always »selected« (more appropriate is
the word »breeded«) humans.
The transition from animals to humans is an important boundary
mark, because no animal and no other living being except the human
beings are capable to live against the so-called »natural
selection«, for example by their own »selections«
(»social state« as »social selection« and
so on and so forth).
The social state as the selector according to the social
selection does select against the Darwinistic
selection principle, thus against the natural
Nobody said that humans are independent of nature. Knowing me,
you should know that I never said that humans are absolutely free,
but that I always say that humans are relatively free. They can
do something against nature, they fight gainst nature, they destroy
nature, and they select against the natural selection.
But this does not mean that they are at last more powerful than
nature. Humans are no gods but want to be (like) gods.
The sexual selection and the social selection
are different types of selection. Animals have no politics that
can destroy the whole planet or eleminate some other animals just
because of their social status or their color of skin, hair, eyes
and so on and so forth.
There is no other living being that is capable of acting against
nature in a threatening extent. Only human beings are capable of
doing that. In that case the difference between humans and animals
is more than huge. Humans are the only creatures on this planet
that can be so much threatening that they even accept to murder
99% of them or to completely die out.
The humans are the only species that is capable of designing their
own replacement as a species and thus their own extinction.
Evolution is true, but the Darwinistic selection principle is false!
The Darwinists may repeat their errors about the selection
principle and the definition of fitness as often
as they want to: they do not get more true by repeating them. Survival
determines who is fittest is no definition that explains what
the fittest means, what fitness means. Survival
as in perpetuation is merely a formula of a prayer and has
nothing to do with the question what fitness means in
reality, because in order to know which living being is the
fittest, thus determined by the survival as in perpetuation
(?), you have to wait until the end of the perpetuation
which is impossible, an oxymoron.
It is impossible to save the Darwinistic selection principle, because
the fabricated exceptions of the rule, the natural selection,
contradict that rule. At last the Darwinists have merely contradictional
exceptions of the rule they contradict. And please: What is nature
according to the Darwinists? It is another word for God. So the
Darwinists are pantheists.
No wonder, because it was the time of naturalism when Darwin published
his theory. Naturalism is based on a teleological definition of
nature. To naturalists like Darwin and his Darwinists
(especially: Spencer and Haeckel) nature is God and God is nature.
So when the Darwinists say that the nature selects they
mean God selects. The Darwinists are pantheists.
I am sorry, but this likeable theory is false.
All living beings - especially the human beings - are beings of
trying, copying, training (learning), changing (varying, modifying,
... dying). If they were not, they would be not more than genetically
programmed beings. So living beings and their doings are always
surrounded by variations. So if one is commanded to do x
and does x without any variation, then there is no cultural
change of doing x. During almost the whole Stone Age,
many doings happened without any cultural variation resp. with the
cultural command of preventing any natural and cultural variation
- as far as it is possible, of course. The opposite has been becoming
true since the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution, especially
since the beginning of the European Industrial Revolution. Variation
leads to change (development, evolution, history), and doing the
variation means trying.
Modernity means much, probably too much trying. So modern
humans should not try too much any more, because they have
already changed the world too much. In other words: modern
humans should become unmodern again, more genealogical again, more
traditional again, more conservative again. If they will not do
this, then they will die out. Since the beginning of the Neolithic
Revolution, especially since the beginning of the European Industrial
Revolution, the humans have been changing the world too much,
and the price will probably be the extinction of the humans, if
they will not stop changing the world too much. So again:
do not try too much, because your offspring will have to
pay the price for your trials, your trials as your errors.
Humans are not really capable of being progressive, of being liberal,
of being equal, of being fraternal. This is only possible in a spiritual
sense of a sphere like a culture. But first of all, humans are natural
beings, and nature is not progressive, not liberal,
not equal, not fraternal. So being progressive, being
liberal, being equal, being fraternal jsut means being ideological
(religious in a modern sense) - not more and not less.
By the way: liberalism and egalitarianism contradict each other.
They are an oxymoron, a contradiction.
Darwinism is the trial to interpret the nature only economically
- by competition, by a false selection principle (**|**)
as if living beings were selected like goods, articles, products.
Not being allowed to compete is not competition but a possible consequence
of competition. My example was that 99% are forbidden to compete.
response is that this non-competition is competition.
That is not possible. Competition and non-competition are never the
same. It is like saying truth is lie or lie is truth.
So you are wrong.
What you mean is the culturally based competition like techno-creditisms
(formerly known as capitalism), but the naturally based
competition will as long as living beings exist not disappear.
And by the way: Sex is a relatively young phenomenon of evolution
and also a good example in order to explain what competition means.
If you want to please somebody, then you are already a competitor,
and sex is also and a special guarantor for that fact. You are saying
(in your signature): Sex is the fundamental principle of Creation.
That is also not possible, because sex is a relatively young phenomenon
of evolution. So the fundamental principle of creation must be an
Disassociation from nature is luxury.
Most of all living beings, especially all older species (thus the
huge majority of all living beings) are not capable of having sex.
They live without any sex or something like sex.
The tragedy of the commons means an evolutionary suicide.
It seems as if the far greatest invention of nature - the human
brain - would be nothing but a priori doomed experiment.
Well, it is a high and - for the actors (!) - risky investment
of nature or God, in other words: almost a waste, in any case a
The r-strategy and the k-strategy have not primarily to do with
selection or even with the sexual selection. Primarily they have
to do with reproduction. They are reproduction strategies. So the
English wording r/k selection or even r/k sexual
selection is misleading.
Ordinate (y-axis): Quantity of the survivors.
Abscissa (x-axis): Achieved age in % terms of the maximal lifespan.
Sex is not necessary for reproduction. There are many living
beings which have no sex and nonetheless offspring. They reproduce
themselves without sex, and they are very successful without sex.
The sexless reproduction is much older than the sexual reproduction.
Evolution is all about self-preservation.
A disadvantage can later become an advantage then (and only then),
if (and only if) the environment changes in a way that leads to
the maladaptation-adaptation change. So the maladaptation can become
an adaptation, more exactly: a postadaptation. A postadaptation
does not mean that there was no maladaptation; the reverse is true:
a postadaptation means that there was a maladaptation that has later
become an adaptation due to the change of the environment.
Information is serving self-preservation. Without self-preservation
or, more exactly, without any interest in self-preservation information
would be useless.
Humans are capable of destroying their environment on purpose,
thus willfully, consciously, but other living beings are not capable
of doing that in the same way.
The stage of evolution consists of the evolutionary
actors (here: living beings) and the evolutionary scenery
(environment). My thesis is that the actor homo sapiens
has been destroying his scenery for meanwhile about
10000 years. Since then (the Neolithic Revolution [**])
the humans have been affording the luxury of the partial dissociation
of environment, and that means partial independence of adaptation
because of culture (thus: intelligence; biologically said: brain).
By the word dissociation I mean the avoidance
Homo sapiens is the only species that is relatively free of having
to be compatible with the environment and can even destroy it. The
environment of the very modern homo sapiens is the whole world.
Beavers do not willfully destroy their environment.
If a beaver really destroyed its environment like humans do, then
it had to have the same intelligence, it had to know what destroying
of environment means, it had to be as cynical as humans are.
Beavers are not capable of destroying
their environment on purpose, thus
They know absolutely nothing about destroyimg of the environment,
nozthing about ecological destruction ... and so on.
I say that man can partly dissociate himself from evoluton and
from environment - which means: man is capable of avoiding total
Most of all ever living beings died out. According to the Darwinists
they must have been both fit and unfit. They nust
have been fit, because they have been well adapted over a
long time (offspring), and they must have been unfit as well,
because they died out.
This contradiction can only be solved, if the Darwinists give up
their ideological (thus modern religious) interpretation of the
terms fit and unfit and accept the right
meaning of them.
Living beings are living in an environment, human beings, who are
living beings too, are living in the world, which means that they
do not merely live in an environment but in the world, and they
destroy their environment, if they want to.
Homo sapiens has been playing God or, in the words of the
selection priciple, the selector of the own species, of their environment,
of other species, of the whole world. Many other living beings have
become extinct just because of the human beings. These other living
beings had not become extinct, if they would not have been negatively
selected by the selector homo sapiens. Human beings are not
like all other living beings. The human ecologlogical or/and social
selection is a political selection and contradicts the natural selection,
the sexual selection, the kin selection, ... and so on and so forth.
It contradicts the concept of adaptation and fitness, because it
can and does make out of well adapted and fit living beings bad
adapted (maladapted) an unfit living beings, out of bad adapted
(maldapted) and unfit living beings well adapted an fit living beings.
Homo sapiens can and does select positively (eugenically)
and negatively (dysgenically).
So we can rightly say that homo sapiens is a godwannabe.
Human beings are naturally more like animals and culturally more
like gods. But unfortunately they are not capable of being both
or/and each of both in a complete way. Homo sapiens is naturally
not capable of being a 100%-animal and is culturally not capable
of being a 100%-god. That is the fateful dilemma of homo sapiens.
Homo sapiens can and does select positively (eugenically) and negatively
Homo sapiens has been playing God or, in the words of the selection
priciple, the selector of the own species, of their environment,
of other species, of the whole world. Many other living beings have
become extinct just because of the human beings. These other living
beings had not become extinct, if they would not have been negatively
selected by the selector homo sapiens. Human beings are not like
all other living beings. Their ecologlogical or/and social selection
is a political selection and contradicts the natural selection,
the sexual selection, the kin selection, ... and so on and so forth.
It contradicts the concept of adaptation and fitness, because it
can and does make out of well adapted and fit living beings bad
adapted (maladapted) an unfit living beings, out of bad adapted
(maldapted) and unfit living beings well adapted (maladapted) an
fit living beings.
This politics - as a political selection - has been existing since
the beginning of the urbanisation, because urbanisation means an
increasing density of towns, cities, megacities and an increasing
danger of loss of control because of the increasing number of humans
in those towns, cities, megacities. Today this is a problem of almost
the whole globe. This danger of loss of control must be and has
been replaced or compensated by a new kind of control. The so-called
(second) industrial revolution was a machine revolution
and led to a huge techno-creditism, to more wealth, to more human
workers, later to less human workers, thus to more unemployment
because of the nonetheless increasing human population. Considering
this situation: what would you do, if you were one of the rulers?
The very first group of human beings had at least one moral law:
being a member of the group. Leaving the group was only possible
by becomig the foe / enemy of the group. This often meant the death
of that foe / enemy. Each member of the group knew this moral law,
its breach, the comsequences of this breach, thus the punishment.
So the very first human group was already moral, although in a primitive
Moral has to do with knowlewdge of it or of something that is like
moral or law and its consequences like punishment.
The first moral is a means of surviving: ones surviving depends
on the groups surviving. Leaving the group can lead to a new
group and new morals, of course, but that does not change the meaning
of the first moral law: means of surviving.
By the way: The main problem that modern humans have with morality
has not to do with this first moral law or other laws of the primitive
morality. It has to do with the fact that modern humans are not
capable of acting and reacting according to the consequences of
the facts that humans created by inventing things, especially technological
things. In other words: Humans have a problem with living on the
same level that they have reached technologically - the human nature
is always far behind the human spirit (including moral), because
the human brain is made for surving, at least primarily. The first
moral law has to do with surviving. But the modern humans have created
moral systems that have not much or even nothing to with surving.
Homo sapiens is a species that has reached a stage of development
of a huge difference between nature and culture.
Humans are not absolutely free, they are relatively free. in other
words: relatively unfree. If the humans were free, then humans could
and would for example live however they want to, as long as they
want to, decide whatever they want to ... and so on and so forth.
In reality humans sooner or later realize that they have to accept
facts like illness and death or consequences like punishment (jail
or other isolations), if they did not behave according to their
environment, to the law, the moral system of their group.
According to the natural selection the fit species as the well
or even best adapted species has enough offspring, thus survives,
whereas the unfit species as the badly or even worst adapted or
maldapted species has not enough or even no offspring and dies out.
Political selection means that social politics can artificially
make out of unfit humans as the badly or worst adapted or maladapted
humans fit humans as the well or best adapted humans, so that they
can have enough offspring, thus survive, and it also can artificially
make out the of fit humans as the well or best adapted humans the
badly or worst adapted or maladapted humans, so that they have not
enough or even no offspring and die out. So natural selection and
political (social) selection contradict each other.
What humans culturally create or select is, if you compare it with
what nature creates or selects, artificial
(cultural), although every culture is based on nature. Humans are
capable of dissociating from nature, which does not mean
that they are completely free from nature, but it means that they
are relatively free from nature, thus also from natural selection.
The development of the human brain led to a huge intelligence and
skills that made an isolation process possible, so that the humans
could become relatively free from nature, thus also from
Nature causes anti-nature (culture).
Culture is the artificial antipode of nature. In other words:
Culture is the antithesis of the thesis nature. Guess
what the synthesis is.
I call this safe zone (**)
isolation or island, an island in
an ocean named »nature«. If the humans would survive
only according to the natural selection, then today there would
be no 7 billion humans but approximately 0.7 million humans (0.01%
of the current number of humans).
The intelligent humans have an insufficient number of offspring
(often even no single child) and are going to die out, whereas the
unintelligent humans have a sufficient number of offspring (often
even eight children per woman) and are going to survive. This is
based on political/social selection - not on natural selection.
Intelligence is an evolutionary advantage and can only become a
disadvantage by political/social selection. The political/social
selection contradicts the natural selection.
I am not saying that the political/social selection has nothing
to do with the natural selection. I am merely saying that the political/social
selection contradicts the natural selection, although it is embedded
in natural selection. This is what I have been saying for a very
long time and with many of my posts in several threads (you may
read them). If a thing contradicts another thing, then this does
not necessarily mean that the contradicting thing is outside of
the contradicted thing. The relation of this things can be a hyperonym/hyponym,
a superordination/subordination, set/subset relation. I am also
saying that political/social selection works within the boundaries
of natural selection. There are many selections that contradict
natural selection but are nonetheless part of it.
Maybe the following charts depict the relations properly:
|N: Natural selection.
P: Political selection.
||N: Natural selection.
S: Sexual selection.
K: Kin selection.
P: Political selection.
|N: Natural selection.
S: Sexual selection. K: Kin selection. P: Political selection.
As long as all these islands (in the charts: P, K,
S or S-K-P [there are more than shown in this charts]) will exist
and will contradict their ocean (in the charts: N) they
will also have their own order within their own boundaries.
The everyday lives of the humans, if they are healthy and not somehow
disabled, are more surrounded by their human environmant than by
their natural environment. If asked where they live, they would
answer with words that clearly indicate that their way of life is
mainly surrounded by an artificial (cultural) environment, although
this is completely embedded in a natural environment. This is comparable
with the geocentric and the heliocentric point of view. In everyday
lives of the humans the geocentric interpretation is more important
than the heliocentric interpretation of the movements in the solar
system. In an everyday life it is more important to know for example
when the sun goes down and not when the rotation of
the planet Earth has reached the corresponding position
-, although both informations refer to the same issue. The former
information is important for surviving and the organization of the
daily life, the latter information is merely important for science/philosophy
and some other aspects (except those that belong to the former information)
and has only indirectly but not directly to do with surviving and
the organization of the daily life.
Humans are mainly selected by humans, although they are natural.
Most of the currently living 7.4 billion humans live because of
relatively few other humans (and most of this relatively few humans
are already dead), and those humans who were and are not allowed
to live did or do not live also because of that relatively few other
humans. Without human's technology (especially in medicine, hygiene,
... and so on and so forth) there would currently be merely about
1 billion humans; without human's selecting politics there would
currently be about 10 billion humans or another number of humans
(depending on the respective kind of the alternative politics).
In addition, many living beings have become extinct because of humans,
and many other living beings do live just becasue of humans. The
natural selection, although the basal selection or God as the natural
selector would have nothing to do, if the humans were capable of
selecting like the natural selector - who- or whatever this may
be -, and they are not but try to be in their typical way.
Wild tribes have indeed less but very much stronger social constructs
than city tribes.
The missing link is the human culture, the human brain,
the human intelligence, strictly speaking: the technologically applied
We have our genetic program, our self-preservation, our instincts,
our drives, our reproduction (dis)interest, our desires, our will,
and - of course - our culture and technology, based on our intelligence,
which is mainly (70-80%) determined by our genetic program. So when
problems and conflicts of any kind occur, we have to solve them,
i.e by finding a balance in order to make life stable - would you
agree if someone called this health?
Back to the 98% nature that humans have lost, because they have
transfered it to human culture. Humans have merely 2% nature, so
Humans are capable of stand-off, of alienation , of dissociation
Our first ancestors were those first humans who began the transfer
Humans have always had more choices than other living beings -
and the increasingly intrusive ads are also and especially, as I
interpret it, an issue of total control.
The ISS is such an absolute island. There is no natural
environment inside the ISS, everything is human-made, thus artificial
(cultural), even the air that the humans breathe. So the environment
inside the ISS is an absolutely artificial (cultural) environment.
The natural environment is completely outside the ISS. If there
were a natural environment inside the ISS, then the humans who are
inside the ISS would immediately die.
There are more than this human-made islands, some are
absolute, for example spaceships or the ISS, the others are relative,
for example the atmospheric islands:
All of these islands are human-made
and - either absolutely or relatively - isolated from nature.
As long as all these islands will exist and will contradict
their ocean nature they will also have their own order
within their own boundaries. If you replace the natural environment
by an artificial (cultural) environment, then you have created an
artificial isolation of natural selection - either absolutely or
If you live in an artificial environment like the ISS, the natural
environment is even deadly for you. An astronaut is immediately
dead after leaving the ISS (artificial environment) without any
other artificial environment (at least the astronaut suit).
Life resists entropy. Otherwise it would not be capable of self-preservation
and would decay, thus die. Self-preservation means preservation
of the competences during the actual life, whereas reproduction
means preservation of the competences beypond the own life.
There are three evolution principles: (1) variation, (2) reproduction,
(3) reproduction interest. Living beings get recources out of their
environment in order to reproduce their competences by the resources
of the environment, thus to preserve (conserve) and renew their
competences. So they strive to reproduce their competences.
According to this the meaning of life is the avoidance of the loss
of the competences.
If you have the impression that you are not needed anymore, then
you have the impression of the loss of your competences.
Note: Competences means more thanfitness,
it is more like capital, power, acceptance,
Competences are like abilities, skills,
talents, social prospects ... and so on.
Some are passed on through DNA. Some are taught, trained, or conditioned.
They are based on information.
There are many different information memories (storages), two of
them are biological (genetical and neurological) - genes and memes
(short-term and long-term) -, all others are cultural (artificial)
like all culturally made things, for example books / libraries,
pictures, photographs, audiotapes, videotapes, memories of computer,
If you consider this, especially the tendency of each organism
(living being) and each super-organism to avoid the loss of competences,
then many current problems, also and especially the feminism or
the plunder and destruction of our planet, can be understood and
explained in an easier way.
It is a systemic evolution theory or philosophy.
If one cell of a living being (or a human being as a cell
of a super-organism) does not work rightly, then it will almost
certainly not cause the death of that living being. But if the living
being (like a super-organism) as a whole does not work rightly,
then this living being as a whole will almost certainly die soon,
so each cell of that living being (like each human being of a super-organism)
If you asked a wolf whether it makes sense to have offspring and
this wolf could speak, what would the wolf answer?
If you asked a dog whether it makes sense to have offspring and
this dog could speak, what would the dog answer?
Human beings are more free than all other living beings, but human
beings are nevertheless not absolutely free, they are relatively
Culture is the successful or/and unsuccessful implementation of
the trial to escape from nature.
Learning by experiencing a catastrophe is one of the most effective
kinds of learning, because this means an effect where human nature
and human culture are again very close to each other at this moment
of experiencing a catastrophe.
I can guarantee you, that, genetically resp. biologically, the
birth of the I is the fertilization.
Genetically (biologically) there is indeed individuality. When
the fertilization has happened, then the recombination takes place,
and the result is never the same result that your parents got at
their fertilizations. Everyones genetic code is indeed inidividual.
Each genetic code is an indivdual one.
Evolution is based on variation (mutation included), reproduction,
and reproduction interest (formerly known as selection).
No genetic code is the gentic code of the parents, othrwise there
would be no eveolution.
Each genetic code and thus each genetic program is an individual
one. That does not contradict the fact that the roots are the genetic
codes of the parents. So they have to do with the genetic code of
each of their children, of course, but they are not the same.
We all have parents - father and mother -, and their genetic codes
influence our genetic codes, but that does not mean that they are
the same. And if something is not the same, then it is different,
regardless how much, it is different. Our genetic codes are
different from the genetic codes of our parents because of the genetic
We are kin to our parents, and even more to our siblings, but we
are not them.
It is not only linguistically but also genetically/biologically
right to differentiate between I and we.
The child in a womb, regardless whether this child is a zygote,
an embryo, or a fetus, is an I, a living being, one
living being. This child and the mother are two different organisms,
two different living systems, two different living beings. If, for
example, the blood of the mother comes in direct contact with the
blood of the child in her womb, then there is a very high probability
that the child or the mother or both will die because of that fact.
How we know this? We know this because of medicine/biology/genetics.
If we want to talk about environmental influences, then we have
to leave the I, because we have to know what the environment
is and does and how it influences the I. Then we can
also use all the other prepositions. And then we can also talk about
ecology, economy, sociology, psychology ... and so on.
It is no linguistical accident that we have the prepoition I
and call it the first person. That there is something
in our body that says I is also no accident. So it would
not be a mistake to philosophically talk about an I
too, and the history of philosophy has clearly shown that the I
is not only a matter of linguistics and biology/genetics/medicine
but also of philosophy. It is just logical.
Nobody can deny this.
No living being is capable of living without self-preservation.
Life is self-preservation.
Self-preservation is primarily and thus also meaningfully significant.
Otherwise there would be no evolution.
There is natural environment, and there is cultural environment.
Two things are required: (1) something like a sense for perceiving,
(2) something like a nerve system for interpreting what is perceived.
Do you believe in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect?
There is an unadapted minority within the silent majority, and
sometimes this unadapted people are even the majority. It depends
on how the times are, how the respective situation is.
With regard to the belief in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect,
there is a vocal minority and a silent minority behind the vocal
minority, and this two want the majority to believe in an anthropogenic
greenhouse effect as if it should become a part of their new religion
- other parts of tis new religion are: globalism (although it mainly
contradicts the anthropogenic greenhouse effect) feminism, system
of guilt complex (guilty conscience, thus: guiltism [does that word
exist already?]), ... and so on. The question is whether it is already
a majority or still a minority that believes in an anthropogenic
greenhouse effect. The number of that believers still increases.
Cities like that are abnormal, but they exist. They are architectural
facts of human history.
Like I said: Humans are not made for big cities or cities at all
but for thorps, villages; because they are living beings of relatively
small groups (like packs, prides, flocks, herds).
Homicide rate per 100,000 inhabitants in 2012 (####
0-1, #### 1-2, ####
2-5, #### 5-10, ####
10-20, #### >20):
Humans are capable of both adaptation and non-adaptation.
Humans can dissociate from nature, can fight against nature. The
more culture/civilization humans have, the more anti-natural they
Humans are the only species that really fights against the nature.
But when it comes to accusing humans to be responsible for the greenhouse
effect, we must also say that there is much money in play. The greenhouse
effect is not automatically anthropogenic, because it is a natural
effect by definition and caused by the sun and some other cosmic
effects. So the question ist whether humans are really capable of
causing a greenhouse effect. It is no question that humans are ecological
destroyers, that they destroy their natural environment, but it
remains a question whether the greenhouse effect is caused by them,
in other words: whether the anthropogenic greenhouse effect is a
criminal fact or a criminal fake (caused by some certain humans
who make much money out of it) or both.
Note: The money that is payed as a fine (=> penance) by the
polluters (=> sinners) goes to the eco-popes, the
Peter Sloterdijk wrote:
Die Reichen sind gegenwärtig noch eine Klasse
und keine Spezies, aber könnten es werden, wenn man nicht aufpaßt.
The rich (the richest and most powerful are
meant) are currently still a class and not a species, but
could become it, if one does not care.
Source: Cicero; Januar 2009, S. 118. **
Life is the resistance to or struggle against entropy, and culture
is the resistance to or struggle against anarchy. Both can merely
be temporarily successful.
Humans can live without any natural environment, because they can
live in an artificial environment which is made by themselves. They
can live on their own absolute islands - thus: without
any natural environment.
If you live in an artificial environment like the ISS, the natural
environment is even deadly for you. An astronaut is immediately
dead after leaving the ISS (artificial environment) without any
other artificial environment (at least the astronaut suit).
Soon it will be possible to carry the zygote, the embryo, and the
fetus in an extrauterine way. Then we will have totally arrived
at the point of the more insecure, the more primitve reproduction
again. We will no longer need any intrauterine thing then.
The natural womb as the realization of the the natural idea to
lay the egg into the inside of the body will have become obsolete.
There will be no natural birth any longer, since the natural uterus
will not be needed any longer. Humans will not be needed any longer
- their natural reproduction will be replaced by genetic engineering
and artificial wombs, their economical production will
be replaced by machines and perhaps by artificial humans (cyborgs)
.... So humans will either become artificial humans or die out.
Robot Reproduces on Its Own.
If a theory has merely a tiny error, then it is allowed to say
that this theory is falsified.
Also: It is not the selection principle as such that makes
the Darwinistic selection principle false. What makes it
false is its premise. The premise of the Darwinistic selection
principle is that the evolutionary process of all living
beings is caused by their environemnt, so that all living
beings are forced to adaptation by their environment. The word all
is false, as the example of homo sapiens has proven, because
homo sapiens is capable of having an own environment (you
may call it an artificial environment), thus of overcoming
the natural environment, and so, consequently, homo sapiens
is also capable of selecting. So there is an human selection
(you may also call it political selection or social
selection or artificial selection) as well. Humans
are capable of killing almost all living beings. If they die out
because of the human selection, then (attention: tautology!)
it is caused by the human selection, regardless whether there
is also a natural selection or not. So in other words: I
am not saying that there is no natural selection. I am saying
that there are other selections that contradict the natural selection.
Living beings like the human beings who are capable of living in
an artificial environment have, if they do it, nothing to do with
the natural environment, at least as long as they live in their
own artficial environment.
Humans who go through our solar system by their spaceship without
any contact to the planet Earth can survive as long as they are
in their self-made environment. During this time (which can be a
very long time in principle) all living beings that live in this
environment evolve because of a man-made environment. So this anthropogenic
environment causes the adaptations of all living beings who live
in it. They are selected by humans.
The Darwinistic selection principle is false, at least in many
cases and especially in the case of the human beings.
Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling said that nature casts up its
eyes in the human being. So I am saying that culture casts up its
eyes in the current phase of the Occidental culture, which means
the trend to transhuman beings.
Was gibt es denn? // WAGNER (leiser) :
Es wird ein Mensch gemacht.
WAGNER : So muß
der Mensch mit seinen großen Gaben // Doch künftig höhern,
höhern Ursprung haben.
HOMUNCULUS (in der Phiole zu Wagner) :
Nun, Väterchen! wie stehts? es war kein Scherz // Komm,
drücke mich recht zärtlich an dein Herz.
WAGNER (betrübt) :
Am Ende hängen wir doch ab // Von Kreaturen, die wir machten.
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust (II), S. 114, 115 und 122.
What is happening? // WAGNER (quieter) :
A man is being made.
WAGNER : So man with
his great skills shall have // To have a higher, higher origin in
HOMUNCULUS (in the phial to Wagner) :
Well, Daddy! hows things? it was no joke // Come, press close
to my heart tenderly.
WAGNER (saddened) :
In the end, we do depend // On creatures that we made. - Johann
Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust (II), p. 114, 115 and 122.
Humans regulate or intervene. That shows clearly that the natural
selection can be circumvented, and that the free market has never
existed in human history (but only a relatively free market).
Humans are both natural and cultural (artificial).
Humans are partly their own selectors, also the selectors
of pets and many other living beings, and they can survive in very
extreme and artificial environments, thus in environments that are
As for the relatively free market or relatively unfree
market, humans have always had rules (laws) in order
to regulate their markets.
If you want to have a capitalistic system, you need
rules; if you want to have an anti-capitalistic
system, you need rules.
We are the only species that is capable of being relatively independent
of natural selection. We can live without any natural environment
and can determine that e.g. the unfit survive and the fit do not
Humans have invented machines that will perhaps take over sooner
or later. Machines are artificial, an invention of humans, so they
are not natural, not even as natural as humans or their culture.
The number of human offspring is partly determined by humans (by
their technology, their artificial practice and their social policy),
whereas the number of all other living beings is determined by nature.
If the number of human offspring was regulated only by nature, then
the current number of the humans would be merely one billion or
one million or even less.
is an advantage and can lead to a culture that circumvents nature
successfully. Note that intelligence is one advantage of many advantages.
So there are other advantages too.
It depends on what advantage is the one that is chosen/selected.
In the case of humans it is the intelligence. Bodily said: it is
our brain that made us so successful. We do not have other physical
features that have made us as successful as the brain has done.
If we lose this advantage, we will immediately lose other features
too and will perhaps get extinct.
I am arguing that the circumvention is cultural/artificial in the
sense that culture is like an »island« in the
»ocean« nature. This means that nature is indeed
the more powerful one, but as long as the island will
exist for itself and the ocean will not become chaotic
(cause accidents and so on), this island will have and
defend its own rules (laws).
We should consider at least two realms:
1) A natural/physical/chemical realm. This is what I have called
the ocean »nature«.
2) A cultural/artificial/spiritual realm. This is what I have called
the »island« in the ocean »nature«.
1) Planets belong to the natural/physical/chemical
2) Thoughts as such belong to the cultural/artificial/spiritual
The human culture as such is unnatural. Humans have created their
culture. The human culture is like the island in the ocean,
and the ocean is not like the island. The island culture
resists the ocean nature as long as possible. So do
This island (=> culture) can be so isolated that
it is just deadly to connect with the ocean (=> nature).
Think of the astronauts, the ISS and other islands.
Biophysicists have commented that living things function on negative
entropy. According to them, life is a member of the class of phenomena
that are open or continuous systems able to decrease their internal
entropy at the expense of substances or free energy taken in from
the environment and subsequently rejected in a degraded form.
Negative entropy can also be interpreted as negative
If there is an universe, there can, but doesn't have to be a planet
If there is an ocean, there can, but doesn't have to be an island
Smaller systems have their own rules. Not all, but most
of this rules are subordinated to the larger system. The not subordinated
rules of the smaller system temporarily circumvent, resist, contradict
the rules of its superordinated larger system. Thats evident
and can be observed almost everywhere.
We should have both a realistic and an idealistic interpretation
of evolution. Power is always present, but love is not. So, it is
more necessary to support, to demand, to premote love. How should
we do this? -  By practising love;  by enlighten others and
clarifying what love means; (3) by fighting all enemies of love
(how? =>  and ).
You can find the most lack of love in materialistic/hedonistic
times where the individual coolness is a fashion and mostly nothing
else than hidden weakness because of the lack of love.
No consideration of antagonism between power and love!
Loveable people can be powerful, powerful people can be loveable.
But there are many (too many?) people who have diceded upon only
one of the two.
The ecological catastrophe is merely one of some more options for
the end of humans and many other living creatures.
Other options are, for instance, military catastrophes, technical/scientifical
research catastrophes, natural catastrophes.
But all these catastophes will not mean the end of the world
and not mean the end of this planet either; but they will just mean
huge catastrophes for humans and many other living creatures.